If some City Councilors had their way, there would be no parking allowed on Bay Street near Watson Pond State Park starting Wednesday.

A handwritten letter submitted by an 80-year-old woman living on Bay Street — in which she detailed abuses by people parking in front of her house, on days when the park and pond draw large numbers of visitors — elicited a strong response at Tuesday night’s Council meeting.

Both Deborah Carr and Ryan Colton suggested that current street signs near the park’s entrance, restricting on-street parking to daylight hours, immediately be replaced with No Parking signs.

“I think we should restrict the parking now,” Carr said. “I’ve seen people walking in the road there. It’s very dangerous.”

“It’s horrible,” Colton said. “It’s only a matter of time before we have a big tragedy in that area.”

There has already been one pedestrian death this summer on that stretch of Bay Street, although it occurred at night when the park was closed. In that instance a 17-year-old boy was killed this month by a hit-and-run driver.

With a petition having been submitted in July by residents living near the park pushing for a parking ban, and a front-page story in Tuesday’s Gazette covering the issue, the Council took the time to allow the four-page letter to be read in full.

Colton suggested the city employ portable, orange No Parking signs until it’s possible to remove the permanent signs prohibiting parking from dusk to dawn.

Other councilors, however, reminded Colton and Carr that procedure would have to be followed, whereby the matter is referred to the Ordinances and Enrolled Bills Committee to be considered as an addition to city ordinance.

“It’s not legal for the city to tow vehicles without an ordinance [on the books],” Jason Buffington said.

Buffington noted that the city engineer would first have to put the proposed ordinance change in writing for the Council’s consideration.

Councilors recognized a key point of the letter pointing out that many park visitors opt to park on the street to avoid paying the $5 admission fee to park on premises.

There are two lots within the state park, and it’s extremely rare that anyone ever parks in a secondary lot located perhaps 75 yards away from the main area, it was noted.

A.J Marshall suggested the possibility of free parking in the secondary lot as a means of enticing visitors to avoid parking on street, where there is only a narrow breakdown lane.

Daniel Barbour, who initially tried referring the letter to the Committee on Police and License before it had been read in full, withdrew that motion and agreed with a later one to refer the matter to the ordinance committee.

Page 2 of 2 - The Council also agreed to send a letter to the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, asking them to appear before the Council to discuss the possibility of reducing parking fees from $5 to $2 per car.

Colton dismissed the argument that many people visiting the park would have a hard time affording paying to park there — saying he considers it a “small tradeoff” if someone were to not visit in exchange for avoiding injury or death.